Did Mike ever try to get the legal right to record under the BB name (post '98)?

[Nicko1234]

My recollection is that the non-exclusive licenses had a set expiration date, perhaps December 98 or very early in 1999. Once the non-exclusive license expired, Love was the only one to apply for an exclusive license which was granted by BRI. I do not ever recall seeing an exact term (dates) for the exclusive license. Interesting to note that in the summary of court proceedings quoted above, at least as late as 1998 there were still only 4 voting board members of BRI, one of which was Jardine. This would lead one to believe that we would still have Al, Mike, Brian and Carl's estate as the voting members of BRI.

This would be interesting if true but it would not seem to give much time at all for them to arrange any touring.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  Case in point, BRI issued a license for the C50 reunion. Evidence being Mike's complaints about lack of control. If the reunion had been under Mike's license, he would have called all the shots.

Commonsense tells you Mike's license is exclusive: if it were not, Alan would be playing his shows as The Beach Boys as well, wouldn't he ? The reunion was a one-off exception that all factions agreed to.

[HeyJude]

My recollection is that the non-exclusive licenses had a set expiration date, perhaps December 98 or very early in 1999. Once the non-exclusive license expired, Love was the only one to apply for an exclusive license which was granted by BRI. I do not ever recall seeing an exact term (dates) for the exclusive license. Interesting to note that in the summary of court proceedings quoted above, at least as late as 1998 there were still only 4 voting board members of BRI, one of which was Jardine. This would lead one to believe that we would still have Al, Mike, Brian and Carl's estate as the voting members of BRI.

This would be interesting if true but it would not seem to give much time at all for them to arrange any touring.

Mike was touring on and off through 1998. A couple shows around May of 1998 were actually done with Al, presumably still billed as "The Beach Boys." Later shows in 1998 with Mike, Bruce, and David were apparently booked as something like "America's Band." They apparently didn't get a ton of bookings under this name (no surprise). They were also doing some private shows during this time as well. There's that pro-shot video from around May of 1998 done for Toyota. Al is gone, but Matt Jardine is still in the band. Dunno if they called that show "The Beach Boys", but Bruce flashes a "Beach Boys" t-shirt at one point if I'm recalling correctly.

But by later 1998, I think Mike already had his non-exclusive license and was booking shows as usual under the BB name. The touring band was up and running pretty much the whole time. I'm sure 1999 dates were already being booked in 1998. I don't think Mike was ever in danger of losing the license (or of not being able to renew it). There was only a question in the short term as to whether others would also get a license.

I don't think non-exclusive licenses actually being executed with multiple parties would have worked. Carl's estate's idea got a 3-to-1 vote. Should we guess that Mike was the "no" vote? I think that voting situation would have changed at some point, as Mike's band continued the steady revenue stream.

It also wouldn't have worked logistically to have multiple bands out there touring as simply "The Beach Boys." Even Al's "BBFF" moniker caused confusion. I don't think the other BRI members would have signed on to that for very long.

As another aside, I've also heard from sources quite some time back that, back in 1998/99, there was leverage asserted to gain the votes to get the exclusive license that we aren't aware of. Hate to be so vague, but that bit of info did seem to give a much more full explanation for why they all voted the way they did than simply "they want their easy paycheck from the licensing fees."

[Nicko1234]

Mike was touring on and off through 1998. A couple shows around May of 1998 were actually done with Al, presumably still billed as "The Beach Boys." Later shows in 1998 with Mike, Bruce, and David were apparently booked as something like "America's Band." They apparently didn't get a ton of bookings under this name (no surprise). They were also doing some private shows during this time as well. There's that pro-shot video from around May of 1998 done for Toyota. Al is gone, but Matt Jardine is still in the band. Dunno if they called that show "The Beach Boys", but Bruce flashes a "Beach Boys" t-shirt at one point if I'm recalling correctly.

But by later 1998, I think Mike already had his non-exclusive license and was booking shows as usual under the BB name. The touring band was up and running pretty much the whole time. I'm sure 1999 dates were already being booked in 1998. I don't think Mike was ever in danger of losing the license (or of not being able to renew it). There was only a question in the short term as to whether others would also get a license.

I don't think non-exclusive licenses actually being executed with multiple parties would have worked. Carl's estate's idea got a 3-to-1 vote. Should we guess that Mike was the "no" vote? I think that voting situation would have changed at some point, as Mike's band continued the steady revenue stream.

It also wouldn't have worked logistically to have multiple bands out there touring as simply "The Beach Boys." Even Al's "BBFF" moniker caused confusion. I don't think the other BRI members would have signed on to that for very long.

As another aside, I've also heard from sources quite some time back that, back in 1998/99, there was leverage asserted to gain the votes to get the exclusive license that we aren't aware of. Hate to be so vague, but that bit of info did seem to give a much more full explanation for why they all voted the way they did than simply "they want their easy paycheck from the licensing fees."

Personally I would say that if they were raking in the $$$ then they probably would have been happy to keep it going. It is a moot point anyway as Al couldn`t agree to the terms of the licence he was being offered.

[HeyJude]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  Case in point, BRI issued a license for the C50 reunion. Evidence being Mike's complaints about lack of control. If the reunion had been under Mike's license, he would have called all the shots.

Commonsense tells you Mike's license is exclusive: if it were not, Alan would be playing his shows as The Beach Boys as well, wouldn't he ? The reunion was a one-off exception that all factions agreed to.

This also gets into whether a license is exclusive in that nobody else has currently been given one, or exclusive in that nobody can possibly even attempt to get one.

Mike's license could be "non-exclusive" in that the option for others to ask for one is still there, however far-fetched. But BRI simply being open to additional licenses of some sort wouldn't immediately give Al or anyone else the right to start using the name. It would simply allow others to seek out and/or be granted another license.

I've also mentioned this to AGD and others several times, but I still cannot find the court documents that I recall made mention of a later reference to the license. I think it was one of those mid-2000's lawsuits between Mike and Brian (and/or others). One of the documents made mention that at some point Brian, or his "camp", made a specific mention that under certain circumstances, they would entertain going out with Al Jardine and moving to take the license back and tour as "The Beach Boys." I recall thinking it was probably an empty thing to lob, but it was interesting in that it was on the only instance I've seen where someone suggested Brian ever made a move to even consider "taking the license back." I don't think my memory could have made something up so elaborate. I'm open to the possibility I'm misremembering, but I don't think that's most likely.

[HeyJude]

Mike was touring on and off through 1998. A couple shows around May of 1998 were actually done with Al, presumably still billed as "The Beach Boys." Later shows in 1998 with Mike, Bruce, and David were apparently booked as something like "America's Band." They apparently didn't get a ton of bookings under this name (no surprise). They were also doing some private shows during this time as well. There's that pro-shot video from around May of 1998 done for Toyota. Al is gone, but Matt Jardine is still in the band. Dunno if they called that show "The Beach Boys", but Bruce flashes a "Beach Boys" t-shirt at one point if I'm recalling correctly.

But by later 1998, I think Mike already had his non-exclusive license and was booking shows as usual under the BB name. The touring band was up and running pretty much the whole time. I'm sure 1999 dates were already being booked in 1998. I don't think Mike was ever in danger of losing the license (or of not being able to renew it). There was only a question in the short term as to whether others would also get a license.

I don't think non-exclusive licenses actually being executed with multiple parties would have worked. Carl's estate's idea got a 3-to-1 vote. Should we guess that Mike was the "no" vote? I think that voting situation would have changed at some point, as Mike's band continued the steady revenue stream.

It also wouldn't have worked logistically to have multiple bands out there touring as simply "The Beach Boys." Even Al's "BBFF" moniker caused confusion. I don't think the other BRI members would have signed on to that for very long.

As another aside, I've also heard from sources quite some time back that, back in 1998/99, there was leverage asserted to gain the votes to get the exclusive license that we aren't aware of. Hate to be so vague, but that bit of info did seem to give a much more full explanation for why they all voted the way they did than simply "they want their easy paycheck from the licensing fees."

Personally I would say that if they were raking in the $$$ then they probably would have been happy to keep it going. It is a moot point anyway as Al couldn`t agree to the terms of the licence he was being offered.

I've always been interested to know whether the license for Al that was proposed by either side made specific mention of only touring as "BBFF." To me, that's not as valuable of a license as "The Beach Boys." I would tend to think this had to have been outlined. That's perhaps why Al wanted to pay a smaller fee. Why would Al obtain and pay for a license to use the full BB name, but then use the "BBFF" name?

Was Carl's estate seriously thinking that it would work to have two or three different bands all using the same exact name? That would have been nuts.

[Wirestone]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  Case in point, BRI issued a license for the C50 reunion. Evidence being Mike's complaints about lack of control. If the reunion had been under Mike's license, he would have called all the shots.

Commonsense tells you Mike's license is exclusive: if it were not, Alan would be playing his shows as The Beach Boys as well, wouldn't he ? The reunion was a one-off exception that all factions agreed to.

Semantics.  BRI could issue Al a license to tour as "A TRIBUTE TO THE BEACH BOYS STARRING AL JARDINE". Al would have to pay BRI the same % as Mike does The court docs specically say Mike's license is non-exclusive.

Could BRI license Al to tour as "The Beach Boys featuring Al Jardine  " ? Yes. But due to Mike litigious nature/history, BRI isn't going to do that.

The little legal squirmish last year went whole unnoticed when Brian, David and Al wanted to start billing themselves as "Original Beach Boys ". Mike's lawyers objected but backed down after some back ad forth. Case law is pretty clear that you can bill youself as such as long as that billing does not insinuate it is the band itself  playing.

[SMiLE Brian]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Didn't somebody do the math on what Carl's estate would receive and it turned out to be not a whole lot of money? (In BBs world)

[Andrew G. Doe]

The first gig as the BRI-sanctioned Beach Boys was July 4th 1998, at Trump Marina Casino, Atlantic City NJ. The legalistics were signed off the previous day: prior to that, except at private shows, the band were billed as the "California Beach Band" from 1/9/98 (oddly, a goodly number of these shows didn't include Bruce), or occasionally as"Mike Love & The California Beach Boys" (almost exclusively overseas). Despite the widespread belief, they were never officially billed as "America's Band": the official billing at the SuperBowl XXXII pre-game show was "A Tribute To The Beach Boys Featuring Mike Love, Bruce Johnston, David Marks, Glen Campbell, Dean Torrance, and John Stamos". Just rolls off the tongue, don't it ?  

[SurfRiderHawaii]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

[southbay]

The M&B show would have to clear in excess of 4M for each BRI member (excluding Mike) to make $200,000

[SurfRiderHawaii]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Didn't somebody do the math on what Carl's estate would receive and it turned out to be not a whole lot of money? (In BBs world)

That was  me. Used CA and Federal tax rates, Mike's court statements on his tour revenue and expenses.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Weren't there two versions of Yes going around at one point? ...... I know one was calling themselves "Yes West"

The BRI license should just be open game for these guys .... How much money do they need and how could an Al "Beach Boys" really take profits away from Brian or "The Bruce Boys"? ..... A little bit of coordination would be all it would take ..... I mean unless Brian's Beach Boys (with or without Al) and The Bruce Boys both accidentally book Nutty Jerry's for the same night or something.

But wouldn't it be great if one were to stumble into SeaWorld and "The Beach Boys: Featuring Brian Wilson" were playing the outdoor theater, The Bruce Boys were playing a iron cage in the shark tank, and Al's Beach Boys were playing the kiddie pool?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  Case in point, BRI issued a license for the C50 reunion. Evidence being Mike's complaints about lack of control. If the reunion had been under Mike's license, he would have called all the shots.

Commonsense tells you Mike's license is exclusive: if it were not, Alan would be playing his shows as The Beach Boys as well, wouldn't he ? The reunion was a one-off exception that all factions agreed to.

Semantics.  BRI could issue Al a license to tour as "A TRIBUTE TO THE BEACH BOYS STARRING AL JARDINE". Al would have to pay BRI the same % as Mike does The court docs specically say Mike's license is non-exclusive.

Could BRI license Al to tour as "The Beach Boys featuring Al Jardine  " ? Yes. But due to Mike litigious nature/history, BRI isn't going to do that.

It's there in black & white: Alan decided he didn't need a BRI approved license, exclusive or non- and tried to get away with paying a lot less than the sums required by BRI. He soon found out he was wrong. it was BRI who sued him, not Mike (and yes, as Alan is a voting member of BRI he was indeed technically suing himself !). As he has several times in the past, Alan engineered his own problem here. The situation back then was very straightforward: play by the rules and pay us what the license says, you can bill yourself as "The Beach Boys". Try to pull a fast one, we will sue your ass, and in this case "we" included Brian & Carl's estate as well as Mike, under the BRI mantle.

And yes, Mike's license was non-exclusive - then. It's been exclusive, i.e. only he can tour as The Beach Boys, for many years.

[southbay]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  

Which court docs?  Not the one quoted above by Wirestone as that was clearly referencing the original non-exclusive license offered to all members, not the one Love is currently touring under.

[southbay]

Ugh, put my post in the quote box...

[Andrew G. Doe]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

Based on figures that are at least 10 years old.

[Nicko1234]

Semantics.  BRI could issue Al a license to tour as "A TRIBUTE TO THE BEACH BOYS STARRING AL JARDINE". Al would have to pay BRI the same % as Mike does The court docs specically say Mike's license is non-exclusive.

Could BRI license Al to tour as "The Beach Boys featuring Al Jardine  " ? Yes. But due to Mike litigious nature/history, BRI isn't going to do that.

The little legal squirmish last year went whole unnoticed when Brian, David and Al wanted to start billing themselves as "Original Beach Boys ". Mike's lawyers objected but backed down after some back ad forth. Case law is pretty clear that you can bill youself as such as long as that billing does not insinuate it is the band itself  playing.

It would be interesting again to see for sure that there were no later rulings that showed that Mike was given an exclusive licence...

Al wouldn`t have to pay the same % as Mike does if the past is anything to go by anyway as BRI requested 17.5% when he wanted to tour as BB F&F.

And I`m not sure `Mike`s litigious nature` would have much to do with it. If the licence is non-exclusive still then Al would simply need a 3-1 vote to go out touring using the BBs name in some form. Mike would have to sue BRI to try to stop it and we all know how much success Al had when he tried to sue BRI back in the day...

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I reviewed all the post 99 court docs about a year ago and am fairly certain Miie's licene is nonexclusive.  

Which court docs?  Not the one quoted above by Wirestone as that was clearly referencing the original non-exclusive license offered to all members, not the one Love is currently touring under.

Yes, and the recent court docs post date Mike's 99 license. Nothing has changed since the 2003 litigation.
Again, prof is the non exclusive license for the C50. If Mike's license was exclusive, he would have dictated the entire running of the C50, used used own band, etc.

[Nicko1234]

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

A very nice piece of pie.

Even if that number is accurate, for Carl`s estate to get a couple of million dollars for doing nothing since M&B started touring together isn`t to be sniffed at.

[Nicko1234]

Yes, and the recent court docs post date Mike's 99 license. Nothing has changed since the 2003 litigation.
Again, prof is the non exclusive license for the C50. If Mike's license was exclusive, he would have dictated the entire running of the C50, used used own band, etc.

No, the C50 isn`t proof at all. We all know that if Mike had stated, `My band or it`s not going to happen` then it wouldn`t have happened.

[HeyJude]

it's highly unlikely that Carl's estate would give up earning several hundred thousand dollars every year Mike tours (and doing nothing active towards it) on a point of artistic integrity.

Important to note the word "several" in the statement above. That could mean plausibly anywhere from $200,000 (more than $100,000) to $900,000. I strongly suspect the amount paid is toward the bottom of that range.

Remember too that Mike is 25% of BRI, so he is also paying himself.  When I did the calculations based on Mike's court documented statements on tour revenue, after taxes, it is in the area of $125,000 each to the 4 BRI shareholders. Just a piee of the pie along side licensing, music sales, etc.

Based on figures that are at least 10 years old.

It's probably not an unreasonable guess that the touring band is not pulling in like five or ten times more revenue in 2014 than they were in 2004, adjusted for inflation and whatnot.

Also, while sources have indicated no vote concerning assigning the license have taken place, do we know for certain that no terms of any kind have been changed. Could the percentage have been renegotiated?

Bottom line, that licensing fee is a nice chunk of change to most anybody, and certainly nice for not doing anything. But it's also not the huge fortune some in past years have seemed to paint it as.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Yes, and the recent court docs post date Mike's 99 license. Nothing has changed since the 2003 litigation.
Again, prof is the non exclusive license for the C50. If Mike's license was exclusive, he would have dictated the entire running of the C50, used used own band, etc.

No, the C50 isn`t proof at all. We all know that if Mike had stated, `My band or it`s not going to happen` then it wouldn`t have happened.

BRI is a corporation.  It was all done via licensing and contracts.  The C50 license gave Joe Thomas a lot of power, including the live album he botched up. Mike kinda had no choice because BRI issued the license for the C50. You argue my point. The C50 license was a  negotiated deal. If Mike had an  exclusive license, he would have  had ALL the power in dictating the C50 tour. But his license is non eexclusive so they all negotiated something.

[HeyJude]

Weren't there two versions of Yes going around at one point? ...... I know one was calling themselves "Yes West"

The BRI license should just be open game for these guys .... How much money do they need and how could an Al "Beach Boys" really take profits away from Brian or "The Bruce Boys"? ..... A little bit of coordination would be all it would take ..... I mean unless Brian's Beach Boys (with or without Al) and The Bruce Boys both accidentally book Nutty Jerry's for the same night or something.

But wouldn't it be great if one were to stumble into SeaWorld and "The Beach Boys: Featuring Brian Wilson" were playing the outdoor theater, The Bruce Boys were playing a iron cage in the shark tank, and Al's Beach Boys were playing the kiddie pool?

The lawsuits back in 1999-ish seemed to strongly imply that Al going out as even "BBFF" was taking profits away and confusing people. They were hunting down people that attended the February 1999 Strawberry Festival gigs trying to find people who felt they had been duped by Al's band, etc.

That's why the idea that BRI was offering "non-exclusive" licenses to all at any point seems weird. BRI argued in court that having more than one band with even variations on the name was confusing the marketplace.